Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canucks: Puck Possession Or Transition Team?


Kryten

Puck Possession or Transition  

39 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I have heard many times that we follow the Detroit's puck possession style and we generate offense from keeping the other team from gaining control of the puck. I have also heard that we are a solid transition team that makes teams pay when they turn the puck over (like Phoenix). I personally believe that we are a solid transition team but I want to know what you think. Here's my reasoning:

I believe that a lot of people think puck possession means maintaining control in the offensive zone (ie the cycle). To me the definition of puck possession is maintaining control in all three zones as often as possible. In my opinion the most important part of keeping the puck controlled throughout the game starts with the breakout. I believe that our breakout has major issues with players not being on the same page. Some lines like to offer puck support some of the time, others not at all and the defence are left playing a guessing game.

When we gain control of the puck in our zone, our forwards have a tendency to blow the zone, giving our defenceman a very risky choice: dump the puck to the neutral zone, or try to connect a long pass. These options are dangerous because the other team has the opportunity to gain possession. IMO this is why Hamhuis and Bieksa struggled down the stretch and why Ballard has more often than not rode the pine: they are defence who need puck support so they can pass to a target or carry the puck with speed. Detroit's defenceman are not hung out to dry like the Canuck's defence and are more likely to keep possession because they have more options to use when breaking the puck out of their zone. When most defenceman are pressured or tired, they are going to ice the puck unless they have outlets!

When puck-possession squads run into teams that utilize defensive strategies like the trap, they change their breakout accordingly. For example: I have seen two answers to the trap: overload one side of the ice and create open space in the neutral zone or force the puck to the red-line to dump and chase. Another difference between us and Detroit: we often dump the puck before reaching the neutral zone, Detroit dumps it in from the red-line (FTR I know every team ices the puck, but most times it's an error on a player's behalf and not a symptom of strategy). If one of our zone clearing attempts turns into an icing, well we have some of the best centers in the league (coincedence - I think not). Our centerman while often on the winning side, aren't infallible and will lose at least one out of every three draws. Again not the actions of a team who likes to maintain control of the puck.

The most notable sign of our non-puck possessiveness is when we take the lead in a game. Even if it is in the first period it seems that we go into trap mode and defend a one goal lead for forty minutes. We do nothing but dump the puck and plug the neutral zone. We differ from Detroit on this strategem as well. While there is no doubt they are more aware of their defensive responsibilities when ahead, they still do not offer up possession without a battle (please keep in mind that I am referring to Detroit's strategy and not their results).

IMO we are not a puck possession team, we are a transition team who relies on special teams. I would prefer we be a puck possession squad because I believe that the transition game can be beaten by a select few teams that have exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck (who happen to be the teams we tend to meet in the post-season). AV's strategy wins us a lot of games but let's not call his strategy something it is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've just outlined what drives me batshirt crazy about this team's offensive strategy in a way that I would never have been able to articulate.

This strategy gets exposed in series play, as other teams adjust (if it even has the chance to work for a game or two), or, as you mentioned, possess exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck to begin with and nearly sweep us.

The system may win lots of regular season games, which admittedly gives us a chance every season to at least make the playoffs, but compare games won vs games lost in the playoffs in the last 5 years against series won vs series lost. There is bound to be a glaring contrast. The Chicago series and the Cup finals series illustrate the importance of that contrast - you can still win lots of playoff games and come home empty handed. Which, to me, spells out the obvious need for at least a change in game-plan/strategy . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the Canucks are mostly a low risk possession/dump the puck team with an uncoordinated transition mentality.

They like to push the puck up quickly but the players don't always know whether to attack or to pass. That split second indecision leads to a weak attack or just set offense.

With possession they like to try to make the safe plays and mostly keep the puck on the perimeter. At times there are passes that should go to the middle and thats when other teams like to exploit the offense. In the regular season this works ok because teams are more likely to have holes. However in the playoffs bad habits and turnovers lead to great chances the other way.

They should be great at both offensive styles while having better coordination for transition d if they do make turnovers. Right now I just see the Canucks as having many holes in many aspects of their game and no real strategic advantage over playoff teams. I see them as a team that has potential to be better than they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I was annoyed that Ehrhoff left (yes I know he was not worth what he wanted). However, Ehrhoff was and probably would still be our best puck-moving D-man, and he, more often than not, broke the team out of the zone successfully. We seriously underestimated his offensive, and, general value. Points is not everything. Ehrhoff did a lot of things our D can't do (ie. puck-moving, puck distribution, getting shots through, consistent PP anchor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really struggle to find how we are a transition team when one of our main problems is scoring off of the rush. Look at Philly's offense for example. Almost all of their offense is created off of the rush because they have guys who have speed, high chemistry, high offensive awareness, and they know when to pass or shoot. We've seen flashes of it on our team but our 2nd line especially needs to improve that part of their game. It pains me to watch Kesler and Booth just fire wrist shot after wrist shot in hopes of a lucky bounce or rebound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great read, thanks! I think the Nucks define themselves as a 'puck possession' team, you hear the players and Gillis stating it in post game interviews etc etc. I am no expert, but I also agree Canucks are a transition team who rely heavily on special teams - but I think their bread and butter is puck possession.

Unfortunately, they were a bad puck possession team this yr (8th in the league). Here's a good read: http://www.broadstre...ck-nhl-playoffs For a team that relies heavily on puck control, being 8th in the league is all sorts of bad (note: LA was 1st in the league).

I would describe AV as a 'zone matching' vs. a 'line matching' coach. I believe his hard matching zone starts have hurt the Canucks puck possession - most notably for this yr. His zone starts this yr were much more 'extreme' than last yr (take a look at behind the net if you know what I'm talking about). To a large degree, I think it's killed the teams ability to create as many scoring chances and it leads to increased scoring chances against (hence bad puck possession). I think it explains why when they're up a goal they convert into more of a trap system - it's to compensate for the hard matching zone starts.

As you stated, this team relies heavily on special teams. Unfortunately, that is more suited for the reg season vs. the playoffs. We've now seen Boston win a cup with a brutal PP, and LA is following suit. It's part of the reason why I'd like to see a new coach. This team needs a new system, one that doesn't include extreme zone starts or heavy reliance on special teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really struggle to find how we are a transition team when one of our main problems is scoring off of the rush. Look at Philly's offense for example. Almost all of their offense is created off of the rush because they have guys who have speed, high chemistry, high offensive awareness, and they know when to pass or shoot. We've seen flashes of it on our team but our 2nd line especially needs to improve that part of their game. It pains me to watch Kesler and Booth just fire wrist shot after wrist shot in hopes of a lucky bounce or rebound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've just outlined what drives me batshirt crazy about this team's offensive strategy in a way that I would never have been able to articulate.

This strategy gets exposed in series play, as other teams adjust (if it even has the chance to work for a game or two), or, as you mentioned, possess exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck to begin with and nearly sweep us.

The system may win lots of regular season games, which admittedly gives us a chance every season to at least make the playoffs, but compare games won vs games lost in the playoffs in the last 5 years against series won vs series lost. There is bound to be a glaring contrast. The Chicago series and the Cup finals series illustrate the importance of that contrast - you can still win lots of playoff games and come home empty handed. Which, to me, spells out the obvious need for at least a change in game-plan/strategy . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great read, thanks! I think the Nucks define themselves as a 'puck possession' team, you hear the players and Gillis stating it in post game interviews etc etc. I am no expert, but I also agree Canucks are a transition team who rely heavily on special teams - but I think their bread and butter is puck possession.

Unfortunately, they were a bad puck possession team this yr (8th in the league). Here's a good read: http://www.broadstre...ck-nhl-playoffs For a team that relies heavily on puck control, being 8th in the league is all sorts of bad (note: LA was 1st in the league).

I would describe AV as a 'zone matching' vs. a 'line matching' coach. I believe his hard matching zone starts have hurt the Canucks puck possession - most notably for this yr. His zone starts this yr were much more 'extreme' than last yr (take a look at behind the net if you know what I'm talking about). To a large degree, I think it's killed the teams ability to create as many scoring chances and it leads to increased scoring chances against (hence bad puck possession). I think it explains why when they're up a goal they convert into more of a trap system - it's to compensate for the hard matching zone starts.

As you stated, this team relies heavily on special teams. Unfortunately, that is more suited for the reg season vs. the playoffs. We've now seen Boston win a cup with a brutal PP, and LA is following suit. It's part of the reason why I'd like to see a new coach. This team needs a new system, one that doesn't include extreme zone starts or heavy reliance on special teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue is price of tickets. Because of the organization charges tickets in the high end bracket the game better be entertaining. It's fine to watch at home and beat non playoff teams 1 0, BC as long as the teams winning. But for people who pay 200 for pair of tickets how exciting is a defensive minded team??? I spend so much time just preparing to go to game and leaving a game, those years when first av came in was a snoozer, I hard such hard time selling tickets to games can't go. Saying that if they ever start playing like that I'm just going keep selling off seasons until things change.

I remember near end of season media and bieska were complaining how the crowd were too quiet. I was thinking BC games weren't that entertaining unless you like to cheer being outshot n goalies making the safes. Maybe we can cheer keslerd diving since this a non fighting n big hitting style of the team. Last year this wasn't a big factor BC they were scoring on pp and making teams pay for it giving the crowd something cheer about. Plus I miss the rypper crowd was so hyped up when he dropped em

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transition. There have been countless times that I've heard announcers say how we move the puck so quickly from one end to the other. Great first passes from d-men as well as rushing defenders like Bieksa and Ballard also help.

I will add this: Last year we we're more of a transition team than this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...